The primary reason to introduce a tax on sugary drinks is that they are a major contributor to diabetes, tooth decay, and obesity in the US. Over the past three decades, Americans consume a lot of sugar, especially from sugary drinks. Additionally, it is one of the main sources of sugar in the diets of most adolescents and children. An average can of sugary drink may contain approximately 40 grams of free sugars which is equal to about ten spoons of table sugar (Mytton, Clarke, & Rayner, 2012). Most health organizations recommend that to prevent tooth decay, obesity, and diabetes, children and adults should reduce the consumption of free sugars. Furthermore, sugary drinks are quite cheap in comparison to healthy foods. Over the past three decades, the price of healthy and fresh produce increased by approximately 50% whiles the price of soda, alcohol, and butter has reduced significantly ( Thompson, 2009) . Also, regardless of inflation, the prices of sodas plummeted. Hence, increasing the prices of soda is a responsible method of influencing people to make a healthy choice.
However, people who are against a tax on sugary drinks will point out that reducing consumption of sugary drinks is not a miracle cure for obesity, tooth decay, and diabetes ( Birchall et al., 2018) . Additionally, a soda tax was introduced in Mexico, but it did not achieve the desired results. When the Mexican soda tax was introduced, consumption of sugary drinks reduced significantly. On the other hand, people swapped sugary drinks for non-taxed sweets. Instead of reducing the rate of obesity in Mexico, it increased from 71.2% in 2012 to 72.5% in 2016 ( Birchall et al., 2018) . Additionally, over the last two decades, the sales of full-calorie soda reduced by approximately 25% ( Birchall et al., 2018) . However, the percentage of obese and overweight Americans increased significantly regardless of reduced soda consumption. Hence, introducing a soda tax may not achieve the desired results.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are various strategies to gain support for the soda tax. The first step would be creating awareness. The community should be aware of the negative impact of sugary drinks and how introducing the sugary drink tax would reduce its consumption. Moreover, it will be essential to convince the public that the sugary drink tax will prevent or reduce the rate of obesity, tooth decay, and diabetes in the country. The second step involves extending the horizon by evaluating the impact of sugary drink tax on the entire society including employees of sugary drink companies (Longest Jr & Huber, 2010). It also involves analyzing the disadvantages, fairness, and advantages of the sugary drink tax on different groups and whether the policy will introduce conflict. The third step involves supporting society. If people realize that the sugary drink tax will improve their health, it is highly likely that they will support the policy. Public support is critical in the formulation stage (Longest Jr & Huber, 2010).
Various stakeholders are significant in promoting the sugary drink tax. They include special interests groups, organizations, individuals, elected officials, experts, the public, and the media (Longest Jr & Huber, 2010). Elected officials are essential because the Congress determines the national agenda. Also, public support is essential because constituents are highly likely to support candidates who represent their values and perspectives. Furthermore, the media play a critical role in shaping national discussion about the proposed sugary drink tax. Additionally, experts from associations, government agencies, congressional committees, universities, and think tanks offer counsel and advice based on research findings. Furthermore, special interest groups advocate for particular policy choices and represent their constituents’ preferences. Currently, they are over 12000 lobbyists in the US who earn approximately $3.24 billion in fees (Longest Jr & Huber, 2010). Involving all the stakeholder mentioned earlier in the entire policy formation process is essential in ensuring the policy achieves its objectives.
References
Birchall, G., De Vaal, D., Fruen, L., & Cambridge, E. (2018). Taxing our soda and interfering with our diets won't always result in slimmer waistlines. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/23/taxing-our-soda-interfering-our-diets-wont-always-result-slimmer-waistlines-katrina-trinko-column/1055578001/
Longest Jr, B. B., & Huber, G. A. (2010). Schools of public health and the health of the public: enhancing the capabilities of faculty to be influential in policymaking. American journal of public health , 100 (1), 49-53.
Mytton, O. T., Clarke, D., & Rayner, M. (2012). Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health. B MJ, 344 , e2931.
Thompson, D. (2009). Three Reasons to Support a Soda Tax. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/11/three-reasons-to-support-a-soda-tax/29671/
